alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020068EN.01002702.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/27

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Ville de Verviers v J

(Case C-483/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework Agreement, concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP regarding fixed-term work - Clause 2 - Scope of the Framework Agreement - Possibility for Member States to exclude initial vocational training relationships and apprenticeship schemes and employment contracts and relationships which have been concluded within the framework of a specific public or publicly supported training, integration and vocational retraining programme - Consequences)

(2020/C 68/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ville de Verviers

Defendant: J

Operative part of the order

Clause 2(2)(b) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP must be interpreted as not precluding that a national legislature which, in accordance with the power granted to it under that provision, excluded from the scope of the national legislation transposing Directive 1999/70 and the framework agreement a certain category of contracts, be exempted from adopting national measures so as to provide a guarantee to workers covered by that category of contract that the objectives pursued by the framework agreement will be respected.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              U.N. ARMS TREATY VIOLATES U.S. CONSTITUTION

  (Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the draft of the U.N. Arms Trade 
Treaty called ATT is an attempt by Third World countries to control 
guns worldwide, including personal firearms in the United States. Under 
the section of ``scope,'' the treaty indicates that the covered items 
include small arms and light weapons. The language is so broad that 
nations are expected to track all weapons movements from the time they 
are manufactured until their destruction. The language is vague so that 
the treaty could be interpreted to restrict the ability of the U.S. to 
help arm its allies, like Taiwan and Israel.
  The treaty presents a clear and present danger to the Second 
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It allows the U.N. to steal our 
liberty. It is unbelievable that this administration is even 
considering signing this document. The Senate should never approve it 
if the President signs onto it. The President should ignore the treaty 
because he took an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not to the U.N. 
charter.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________
```
Memo to Docket

Meeting on Fuel Economy Label

Held at the EPA NVFEL Offices, Ann Arbor, Michigan

October 7, 2010

Attendees:

Auto Alliance

Friedrich Krahn (Mercedes

- Benz)

Stephen Sinkez (BMW)

Gary Oshnock (Chrysler)

Jessica Robinson (Mitsubishi)

Barbara Kiss (General Motors)

Matthew Kevnick (Toyota)

David Robertson (Mazda)

Ed Kulik (Ford)

Nick Tamborra (VW)

Julie Becker (Alliance)

Giedrius Ambrozaitis (Alliance)

Dan Frankes (GM)

Rajinder Dhatt (Chrysler)

NHTSA

Steve Wood (phone)

Greg Powel l (phone)

EPA

Linc Wehrly

Lisa Snapp

Luci Audette

Laura Baker

Amy Bunker

Gloria Helfand

Aaron Hula

Rob French

Chris Nevers

Kristin Kenausis (phone)

The Auto Alliance gave a presentation, which is separately submitted to the docket, raising key concerns

w ith the proposal. Primary concerns are leadtime, use of color, and the letter grade. More specific

concerns are laid out in the presentation and will be submitted in written comments.
Name: ______________________________________________________________ Date: _________________________

VIN VASIVE’S “TOP 8 WAYS I SPREAD” INFOGRAPHIC

Firewood

Outdoor Gear

Recreational Vehicles

Outdoor Furniture

Passenger Baggage Agricultural Materials

Plants and Plant Parts

Internet Sales
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 11/01/2010 04:06 PM

----- |------------> | From: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |"Delores Lancaster" <dlancastr@nwrec.com> |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |11/01/2010 02:58 PM |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------>

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |Petition for Reconsideration of Portions of the Final National Emission Standards |

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------|

Dear Ms. King, Attached is North West Rural Electric Cooperative’s letter to The Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the United States EPA , regarding support of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association’s Petition for Reconsideration of Portions of the Final National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines. You were noted as receiving a copy. Thank you. Delores Lancaster Administrative AssistantNorth West REC PO Box 435 1505 Albany Place SE Orange City IA 51041 ofc: 712-707-4935 dlancaster@nwrec.coop

From: NORTHWEST REC [mailto:nwrec@nwrec.coop] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 12:40 PM To: dlancaster@nwrec.coop Subject: Attached Image

(See attached file: 2612_001.pdf)
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Tom W. Ward, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this 10-K/A Report of Exabyte Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

Dated:  May 3, 2004

/s/  TOM W. WARD
[749 NYS2d 816]

#### Jalor Color Graphics, *Inc.,*Respondent, v Universal Advertising Systems, Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

September 30, 2002

*77APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert E. Sokolski,*New York City, for Fred Rosenberg, nonparty appellant. *Frank Taddeo, Jr.,*New York City, for respondent. No appearance for appellant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Orders dated December 27, 1999 and January 21, 2000 imposing part 130 (22 NYCRR 130-1.1) sanctions upon nonparty Fred Rosenberg affirmed, without costs.

Appeal from order dated December 27, 1999 denying defendant’s motion for an award of sanctions and other relief dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

We consider the appeal on the merits even though nonparty appellant Rosenberg, defendant’s trial counsel, did not appeal the judgment that implemented the order he did appeal (CPLR 5501 [c]; *see, Molinaro v Bedke,*281 AD2d 242). Reaching the merits, we find no abuse of discretion in the sanctions awards against defense counsel based upon his frivolous and vexatious litigation practices in this action *(see, Matter of Scifo,*272 AD2d 335). As Civil Court appropriately recognized, the threats of criminal prosecution made by defense counsel during the course of the underlying civil lawsuit were “part of a calculated, deliberate strategy designed to harass plaintiff into folding its litigation hand, * * * and cannot be tolerated.” (183 Misc 2d 294, 299.) From a procedural standpoint, we note that the court was not required to hold a formal evidentiary hearing before finding defense counsel’s conduct frivolous *(see, Matter of Marsh,*207 AD2d 749; 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d]), particularly since neither defendant nor its counsel submitted any meaningful response to the serious allegations of attorney misconduct specified by plaintiff.

Leave to appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department, denied; reargument granted and, upon reargument, the decision and order of this court entered on June 5, 2002 (191 Misc 2d 653) recalled and vacated and a new decision and order substituted therefor.

Suarez, P.J., McCooe and Ganger-Jacob, JJ., concur.
.-··, .. 

## Legendary Aircraft.,**~E:xtr~Qn;lin,~ryr**

## ..Service. F 0. ih< 61 bfJO Fairh:ln!:s, Ai\ 09706'1 552.'5 't:olr,l7dl**!ndil.~!li:lf'l"<d**..**~fDirLan!(s** AK 9.9709

Mr. Kevin Adams and Stafffor EAS Depmtment ofTransportation 400 

## 7'h Street, SW Room 6401 Washington, DC 20590 <160-2300 Fax (907) 4.50-2306

Re: Request for Proposals**~Provide** Essential Air Service at Adak, Docket 2000-8556 

# v . · - Dear Mr. Adams, June 19, 2012

.0

Everts Air Cargo requests an extension ofthe deadline for submission ofproposals for EAS at Adak,

### Alask~, from June 26 1'\201?

### t~ July 

## p 1 \2012:

. . .. . . . .· With there-solicitation ofthe request for proposal for EAS at Adak, Everts Air Cargo became aware that Alaska Airlines was not pursuing continued EAS service to Adalc I understand that the DOT received a response from only one carrier and the community has expressed concern with that carrier's ability to provide freight & mail service. Because ofthese new developments, Everts Air Cargo is researching data and contacting interestedparties, in order to prepare a service proposal for the**r~solicitation.** . · ""

...... -· · ·.,... · ., · 

## By allowing this extension, it will afford Everts Air Cargo, as well as, other caniers the time needed to provide a more accurate proposal based onthe needs and expectations ofboth the community and the D.O.T. Itdoes not appear that this extension will adversely impact the community, noting AlaskaAirlines willingness to hold in, tmtil such time that an EAS replacement is identified. Everts Air Cargo's involvement in this re-solicitation may provide a suitable alternative for the Adak Community and D.O.T. to consider as an AdakEAS replacement. Your consideration for this request is appreciated,

# i~**,-'l** 

# 'd /I / t

## ~#-;**·~.-w~~rt-----­** 

## ./,L**/~-·** Robert Ragar · Manager Contracts & Hazardous Materials
# C_2019054EN.01000901.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rēzeknes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 28 November 2018 — Elme Messer Metalurgs v Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra

(Case C-743/18)

(2019/C 54/12)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Rēzeknes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA ‘Elme Messer Metalurgs’

Defendant: Latvijas Investīciju un attīstības aģentūra

Question referred

Must Article 2(7) of Council Regulation No 1083/2006 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which the beneficiary of funding is unable to achieve the expected level of turnover during the relevant period because, during that period, the business of its sole partner has been suspended or that partner has become insolvent is to be considered an act or omission by an economic operator (the beneficiary of funding) which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the European Union?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

---
Exhibit 11 Computation of Earnings Per Share



<PAGE>


                                   Exhibit 11
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share


                                                        For the Year Ended
                                                           September 30,
                                                       -------------------
                                                        1998         1997
                                                       ------       ------
                                                      (Dollars in thousands,
                                                     except per share amounts)

Net Income                                             $3,001       $2,505
                                                       ======       ======

Weighted average common shares
outstanding                                             1,615        1,630

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive
effect of stock options                                    81           40
                                                       ------       ------

Total weighted average common shares and
 common share equivalents outstanding                   1,696        1,670
                                                       ======       ======

Basic earnings per common share and
   common share equivalents                            $ 1.86       $ 1.54
                                                       ======       ======

Diluted earnings per common share                      $ 1.77       $ 1.50
                                                       ======       ======
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Respondent.

No. 20444.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1963.

Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, Allen M. Hutter, Atty., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

O. R. T. Bowden, Hamilton & Bowden, Jacksonville, Fla., for respondent.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, JONES, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing'that the only issues before the Board are fact issues, and it further appearing that there was substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Board, it is ordered that the Order of the Board shall be enforced.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27893]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Innovations in Functional B Cell 
Epitope Discovery (N01).
    Date: January 18-19, 2024.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F52, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Lindsey M. Pujanandez, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F52, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 627-3206, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a3633343e293f23742a2f303b343b343e3f201a343332743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d6babfb8b2a5b3aff8a6a3bcb7b8b7b8b2b3ac96b8bfbef8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 14, 2023.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-27893 Filed 12-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
October 10, 2014

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 14-16

TO: Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants

Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics

Veterinary Services Leadership Team

FROM: Byron E. Rippke /s/ Byron E. Rippke

Acting Director

SUBJECT: Processing Special Outlines Describing Proposed Serial Release 

Assays

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Notice is to inform stakeholders of a change in how the Center 

for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) processes Special Outlines that describe proposed 

serial release assays.

II. BACKGROUND

When a company develops a new assay to use in serial release, the CVB requires a 

stepwise assay procedure, assay validation data to demonstrate suitability for 

purpose, and confirmatory testing by the CVB. Frequently the stepwise instructions 

are described in a Special Outline (SO). The SO is frequently submitted for review 

early in the approval process and often undergoes revision prior to final approval. 

When the CVB returns comments and/or asks for revisions on draft SOs for serial 

release assays, each page of the document is stamped during processing with the

same stamp used for all other Special Outlines and Outlines of Production. 

Typically this stamp signifies immediate acceptance. Having only one stamp 

worked historically because the assay still may not be used for serial release until the 

SO is cited in Section V of the relevant Outline(s) of Production (OP) of a licensed 

product. When looking solely at the Special Outline, however, it is often difficult to 

tell the approval status of the described assay. 

III. ACTION 

When processing SOs for serial release assays that have not yet met all requirements 

for final approval to use in serial release, a different restricted stamp will be used. 

The restricted stamp will state that the described assay is not allowed for use in 

serial release. This will provide an additional safeguard against premature

implementation of an assay that has not yet been suitably validated and/or evaluated 

by the CVB laboratory.

Animal and Plant

Health Inspection

Service

Veterinary Services

Center for Veterinary 

Biologics

1920 Dayton Avenue

PO Box 844

Ames, IA 50010

(515) 337-6100

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 14-16

Page 2

A final version of the SO must be stamped with the traditional non-restricted stamp, as 

well as be cited in the applicable OPs, before an assay may be used for serial release.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION/ APPLICABILITY

This change is effective as of the date of this Notice and pertains to all applicable Special 

Outlines processed hereafter.

 An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Three Months Ended
    
    
    Nine Months EndedSeptember 30,
    
    
    September 30,2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008Basic Earnings Per
ShareNet income
    
    $
    858,323
    
    
    $
    890,564
    
    
    $
    2,460,316
    
    
    $
    2,770,086Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,422,014
    
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,433,094Basic Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.31
    
    
    $
    0.37
    
    
    $
    0.90
    
    
    $
    1.14Diluted Earnings
Per ShareNet income
    
    $
    858,323
    
    
    $
    890,564
    
    
    $
    2,460,316
    
    
    $
    2,770,086Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,422,014
    
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,433,094Weighted average
effect of assumed
stock options
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0Total
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,422,014
    
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,433,094Diluted Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.31
    
    
    $
    0.37
    
    
    $
    0.90
    
    
    $
    1.14